Category talk:Candidates for deletion
Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion. Prepare for a zombie outbreak I have many, many grounds for nominating this article for deletion. I know we have had several articles that are too vague, or that basically reiterate another article, but at least with those, I can see a way they can be reworked to take on an original flavor or twist of their own. With this one, I have no idea how it could be made to fit the standards. I wish it weren't the case. More specifically, the article has a very poor title - it reads like a propaganda poster calling you to action. It is extremely vague, attempting to summarize the entire wiki on one page. It has suggestions that contradict other articles we've already established, as well as canonical precedent from World War Z (specifically, melee weapons). Lastly, while about half of the suggestions are worthwhile, and unique, they are not substantial (or related to one another) enough to expand into a single article. I apologize to the anonymous author, as despite the previous criticisms, I do not wish to deter any editor from contributing, and I hope we can work together to eventually generate some quality articles in the future. -- Philodox 04:28, February 24, 2010 (UTC) : I take back what I said about not being able to see a new direction to take the article to redeem it. If it were strictly about "real-world" pre-outbreak conditions, and how to make preparations for such a scenario it could be a unique and appropriate contribution - provided it doesn't strongly echo (better just to link to) other established articles - or obviously, contradict anything already established elsewhere. : -- Philodox 14:42, February 24, 2010 (UTC) ::I had forgotten what I had said above, then made some changes, then reversed my changes. To re-iterate, it's a good idea if it focuses on what to do now, in the real world to prepare for a zombie outbreak in the distant future. That's an angle we haven't gone through before. But if it is yet another individualized, or subjective user plan about what to do once the outbreak starts, then it is redundant. ::Regardless, it has alot of writing issues, and needs to be alot longer and more thorough. And we don't host work-in-progress articles, so I'm going to ask that this be worked on soon, or it won't make it through the month. :: — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 13:15, June 19, 2010 (UTC) How to Survive a Zombie Outbreak I write this with a heavy heart, because the article history shows me that many people put alot of time and effort into this article. With an incredibly thorough rewrite, I could see this article staying, but it would be an awful lot of work. The most pressing issue is the tone. Paragraphs like the following are totally inappropriate for a wiki. : ''Now ,if you happen to be Chuck Norris, Gordon Freeman, Rambo etc., what you will need is a high powered assault aircraft, a warp plasma rifle with a 50-watt range, a crowbar, a power gauntlet, an army of murder bots, a high armor exo-skeleton, and a very strong SMG. Not only will you survive, but you will rule all zombies with an iron fist of hate. Good Luck. The main idea of a general survival plan isn't terrible. But it is tricky to do, because it is not appropriate to add one's one re-imaging of a current article. Case in point - we already have a Weapons section. There is no need to re-do it for this article, and we cannot accept blatant contradictions of that article either. So you can't write the same stuff, and you are very limited in writing different stuff. If there is already a page for it, you should lightly skim it or summarize it in maybe one or two short paragraphs, and include a very prominent link to the main article. Lastly, while there is information here (and as I said, alot of it has to be heavily reworked), there is never any illustration as to how following these things may lead to survival. A topic such as the one this is named for really should cover how to reach safety, or how to properly gauge when the outbreak (already introduced as a minor one in the opening paragraph) has run its course. Otherwise, the reader finishes the article and says "Ok, now what? Is this when the surviving happens?" It's like writing an article about driving to Bill Murray's mansion (to borrow a scene from Zombieland) and have the article finish with "This should bring you to Los Angeles - The End" In closing, between the inappropriate tone, conflicting info and redundant info, 90% of this has to go, and the new info has to take a very different perspective. But it could be done if the vision established with the title and the "Pre-Outbreak, Outbreak, Post-Outbreak" article structure is more strictly adhered to. The Differences Between Surviving Fast and Slow Zombies article is a good guide, and to be honest alot of that runs long. That article should just be able Differences Between Fast and Slow, and not add the separate idea of surviving their different outbreaks into it. After all, you don't see too many wikipedia articles on Poisonous Reptiles with a long description on how to survive a bite from them. -- Philodox 05:03, February 24, 2010 (UTC) The Wandering Strategy I hate to discourage new editors, I would much rather work with them to help incorporate their ideas into the wiki. But we do have standards, and I have no doubt that the majority of editors and viewers are expecting me to delete this article. The main premise - that a person or small group could (or should) wander without shelter for the entire outbreak is highly unlikely to work, and directly contradicts pretty much every thing about the genre. I am no saying there aren't times when it is safe or advantageous to be mobile. Sometimes there are (or would be). But to never make a fortified haven and to always be on the run is unlikely to work in most situations. The thing about zombies is that they call more of them to the area, and they never ever rest. On a highly populated landmass, this would mean having to wander through thousands of zombies for hours. And there is no consensus about how quick or strong they are, which makes it tough to agree on how many is an overwhelming amount for a person to physically resist when surrounded (but most Zombie lovers can agree - it's not as easy as Shaun of The Dead made it seem). Anyway, if it is worth it to Maxbrooksisoverrated to keep the article, I suggest a lengthy rewrite, focusing on more specific scenarios where keeping mobile is feasible/ I would also suggest reading Transportation and Differences, and seeing what you take away from that. I don't mean to be negative, and I encourage reserved and respectful debate on discussion pages. I try to keep an open mind, especially since we're talking fiction here. But like I said before, we have some standards, and we have to uphold them. -- Philodox 01:28, March 2, 2010 (UTC) The March 2nd edit is a decent improvement. I still have some issues, and I will try to find the time to raise them on that page's discussion page (as the way things are going, deletion is looking less likely, so it's probably better to avoid discussion of it's ongoing development on this page). So add that to your watch list if you're invested in it's progress. -- Philodox 14:49, March 3, 2010 (UTC) Being deleted at author's request. He will rewrite when he can about a similar idea, or more specific take on it. -- Philodox 21:27, March 7, 2010 (UTC) Asia Can anyone even think about how to make this worthy of its own page? -- Philodox 18:19, March 5, 2010 (UTC) We had a page on Asia? I don't see the point of having one. Rambo362 21:31, March 13, 2010 (UTC) I think we need a page on Asia, because some places in asia are mentioned in World War Z. You also could take the info on World War Z page on Asia and add it to the Asia page General plasma 06:03, March 14, 2010 (UTC) I looked at the Asia page. I reorganized it and removed the canadidacy for deletion tag. Feel free to add to it. Rambo362 20:29, March 15, 2010 (UTC) Delete!--Bobzombie 18:37, April 10, 2010 (UTC) Get rid of it, just because it's in a Max Brooks book doesn't mean we have to have it. 23:06, May 30, 2010 (UTC) Tanks This page shouldn't be deleted, just rewritten. maybe we could include the advantages to the disadvantages. Any thoughts? Rambo362 00:40, March 15, 2010 (UTC) We need this page, again, I'll see what I can do. 23:04, May 30, 2010 (UTC) Powered Armor why is this up for deletion? is power armor not real and also not useful? :I am almost sure I posted why on this very page before. It must have 404'd, or some other fishiness. Anyway, here is basically what I remember typing. :Yes, Power Armor is not real. If you'd like to provide news sources covering the prototypes, I would read them. Still, early protoype weapons and fictional are not notable enough for this wiki. The rule of thumb is if it has appeared in several zombie films, or if you have a reasonable outside chance of stumbling upon it in a zombie apocalypse. Now, I know what you're thinking - "but what about the laser weapons in World War Z?!?!" Well, if they weren't in World War Z, they would have no place here. But the works of Max Brooks have always been, and always will be important part of this wiki, so that is their loophole. If Brooks comes out with a third book with powered armor, then sure, as far as he covers it is the extent we'll document it. If you'd like to do an article on the ocean floor walking heavy scua armor, that is fine too (but I don't believe Powered Armor would be the best title for it). :Yes, it's not a super-serious wiki. But we can't just let every cool concept in, we have to keep a theme, and eliminate topics that stray too far. Powered Armor is not in anyway related to the survival aspect of this wiki, and has not to my knowledge been used in any zombie fiction of note. I do acknowledge your hard work and overall quality given to this article. It just doesn't belong here. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 17:23, April 9, 2010 (UTC) oh really so max is the ultimate in zombie knowledge, because we all know how right he is about everything concerning zombies including such greats as the shaolin spade. yep 39 year old max brooks invented the zombie genre what about ehh 3000 B.C., give or take a few millenia, when he told gilgamesh that he would make the dead rise if he didnt sleep with him, yep im so sure max would agree! but to give you some insight of the logic you just gave me i'll use the same caliber of nonsense. Because of the fact that they dont use gloves in fallout 3 which does have zombies in it there should be no glove section under armor. also because George A Romero never made a movie with tanks, prisons, schools, or max brooks in it everything concerning these things is void especially since despite the fact that max is a cool relatable guy he is useless and ultimately detrimental to the production of this wiki because he's never fought a zombie in real life. this is all due to the fact that if this wiki is dedicated to the zombie genre then my George A Romero who made his first zombie media before max was even thought of trumpts your little max. Open your mouth a smile for the moneyshot, you've just been owned. -Gwyllgi I will be relocating the information on the powered armor page to the armour until the information has increased in size so much that it merits it's own page. :It has nothing to do with personal opinion. It's more that since its inception, this wiki has always ben about Surviving Zombies ''as per Brooks, more than Zombies as a whole. Yes, because even "in-character" interviews and chats with Brooks admit that there is a Zombie fiction outside of his works (in his universe, it sprung up because it was inspired by recorded/controversial zombie attacks), and because we value well written articles to increase the size and depth of our wiki, over time, other fictional sources are included, but never to the point where we include things that are not associated with (A) Zombie Survivalism of (B) Max Brooks' works. Those have always been our bread and butter, our central themes. I think we can all agree on the first as useful (and powered armor does not meet that requirement, because a handful of prototypes locked away somewhere will not be recommended as equipment to seek out or become versed in - just like predator drones), and even if we don't all love Brooks, a huge part of our search engine based traffic comes from people researching terms and ideas that he created, or covered extensively. Which is why we still include/showcase some of his ideas even when they do dabble in sci-fi. If it weren't for that, we wouldn't. :I'm still keeping this discussion open, because I want to hear other perspectives, but your idea to counter a deletion by inflating another article with content that doesn't meet the wiki's standards is futile. If this goes, so will those edits. 20:58, April 9, 2010 (UTC) : -sigh-. Logged out due to time delay. Yes, the 71. anon is me. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 20:59, April 9, 2010 (UTC) I am pretty sure some time ago I requested this be deleted. Powered Armor ,at this time, does not exist and thus not being useful in this wiki.--Bobzombie 18:39, April 10, 2010 (UTC) It is 100% real, the US military is developing prototypes. Griever and I have had many disscussions about them, if it's still here I'll take a look at it. 23:00, May 30, 2010 (UTC) I take it it's gone... I can have a full page on it as soon as I have permission. 23:03, May 30, 2010 (UTC) Morrison Bridge If the author would like it added to fanfiction, he can contact me, post here asking for help, or see other fanfiction to see how it should be named as to separate it from other articles. Otherwise, it will be deleted by this weekend. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 23:52, April 22, 2010 (UTC) Zombie slang I don't have an issue with the main idea. I also don't have any problem if we limit it to terms from notable zombie films or books. My issue is that the original article includes what seem to be a bunch of user-conjured terminology that he/she feels we ''would ''use in this case. That's even beyond speculation, that's practically original content. And even if we removed those sorts of terms, the very nature of the article would prompt people to continously add their own made up words, making this an on-going problem. Still, I will not be quick to delete this one. I definately want to hear all sides on this. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 13:27, May 22, 2010 (UTC) I agree because when I saw the page I was like "this could be useful to some one" but the made up stuff has to go. Rambo362 20:23, May 22, 2010 (UTC) I chose a handful of terms I've heard used on occasion before, just to start if off; I'm unsure of how much a term has to be used for it to be an accepted term, but I wanted to set up some kind of format for any further additions. Given that I have on several occasions had to explain the slang to people new to the genre, I do think that something along these lines would be genuinely helpful. - Zacchariah Feud 21:01, May 22, 2010 (UTC) I'll add onto it and see if that helps. 22:56, May 30, 2010 (UTC) I think it should stay. 22:58, May 30, 2010 (UTC) there is no way to chronicle vernacular before its adoption and no good reason to try. this page should be deleted. Tomasluther 17:06, November 2, 2010 (UTC) : I gave it another look, and with the "no inventing" disclaimer, and without some of the more questionable ones, I'm fine with it. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 20:12, November 2, 2010 (UTC) what was wrong with: Warbrunn-Knight Report? The information was accurate. Please, add what TV show, game or whatever that came from, then I'll take the tag off. And please sing with 4 "~". 22:55, May 30, 2010 (UTC) It came from Max Brooks book World War Z pages 32-36. The report was mentioned by numerous others who said that they had finally seen it years after the war had ended. Jamessavik 23:18, May 30, 2010 (UTC) Jesus I know what you're thinking. "Whoever nominated it must be an uptight Christian". Not at all. I have no problem with it on that basis. My problem is twofold. (1) It's just going to get some people mad, and cause a flame war or flame spam. (2) ... as a zombie, Jesus is not notable at all. This is a zombie survival wiki. How does a zombie view of Jesus help anyone? Yes, it's "LOLz", albeit minor ones. That doesn't make it worthy of a spot here. Totally open for discussion on this, though. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 02:13, June 3, 2010 (UTC) i am a cristian, and i find this highly offencive. the person who made this page is n idiot 17:58, June 3, 2010 (UTC) Not relevant to Zombie Survival, and will cause trouble with the religious types. While indeed amusing, it's not worth the hassle it will cause by being here. Unless this can be expanded into a proper article, best to get rid. Zacchariah Feud - 02:56, June 7, 2010 (UTC) :Probably engaging in overkill here, but better safe than sorry. Unless anyone has any other comments on the Jesus article, it will be deleted in roughly 48 hours. It will not rise again 3 days later. : — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 16:00, June 11, 2010 (UTC) :Agreed. Lol to the above comment. Rambo362 01:55, June 12, 2010 (UTC) : :i finf it offensive too. plus, its pointless in terms of survival unless you count the fact that strong faith in him might make you a little more positive 01:47, June 13, 2010 (UTC) Baiting I hate to appear like I am bashing or demeaning any contribution that shows the kind of effort and quality displayed in this article, but I feel there are major issues with this article that warrants such a massive overhaul, and page renaming, that we might as well delete the article, and start again. First, '''the name'. I feel an article named baiting should be about deal more with the specifics of setting these sorts of traps - the Do's and Don'ts of venues, baits (kinds of people since only live people are dependable lures according to the Zombie Survival Guide), killzones. This article focuses less luring and misdirecting them, and more on attracting and trying to systematically exterminate them by ringing the dinner bell. I feel that while there is an overlap there, they are two very different things. Maybe this article should be renamed something along the lines of "clearing an area of zombies".. or something more catchy. Another huge issue is the main idea. I do not believe it is right to imply that Zombiepedia endorses the following notion : Be certain that the numbers you will be engaging are managable ''. This may be a feasible thing to do in a structure no bigger than a large supermarket or Walmart. But outdoors, in most parts of the world, this is impossible; plain and simple. What is being suggested will frequently result in a chain swarm from all directions. Remember, in every film and piece of literature about zombies, once the survivors set up a position to engage the horde, they are quickly surrounded on all sides (unless it's the very beginning or end of the outbreak), and the retreat routes are cut off - if not close to them, then further down the road, where the chain reaction of zombie summoning is in full effect. Once they are coming, the only effective means of escape are helicopter or tank. All other routes get clogged up by undead, and that's not counting that many roads would be clogged up by people fleeing the undead, and then abandoning their cars in the jam packed road (a concept rarely indulged upon in zombie films, as it eliminates options for the protagonist). The picture supplied jokingly references the main flaw in this tactic, but even with the prefecing and disclaimers, the main idea as presented seems akin to suicide. Another problem I see is the advice that this is '''not a strategy for any length of time'. Like I said, there are ways to systematically rid an area of zombies, such as The Battle of Hope. But those were not cut and run battles - they were all or nothing. The survivors stayed entrenched, and either the horde would be put down, and a vast area of land would be virtually safe.... or they would go down fighting. So if a group needs to clear the area, retreat will not be possible until the horde is put down. I say if the need exists to take on a whole horde, then the killzone you set up needs to last through all of it, and then there will be no need to run, as you have secured miles of land. Lastly, while we can agree that this is a high risk tactic, I feel it needs to discuss why people would do this, what situations demand it? The only one obvious to me is that your group is large enough, and self-sustaining enough that it feels it can reclaim territory for itself. At that point, it's less about surivival, and more about re-implementing society and civilization. Unless it is a very specific supply target you are trying to clear out, I can't see how engaging the horde could not drain your group of more resources than you could possibly find. So, to sum all that up... * Baiting and calling/grinding down a horde are not the same thing. Baiting includes alot more things (which should be covered in a baiting article), and isn't necessarily about taking on the horde head to head. * The way it is written would not work for the majority of survivors, because calling a horde usually entails seeing your escape route cut off all too quickly, because they come from everywhere * Even in a "taking on the horde" article, a mobile base/killzone is not an option (without air lifts, or heavy armor), because keeping the escape route clear means more points of conflict... and the more open doors you have to guard, the more they can use their numbers. * Use of melee weapons in a large engagement may not be a good idea. Brooks says in the guide something along the lines that the closer they get, the more shaky and clumsy most humans get, so the statistics on accuracy errors (and human fatalities) tend to go up in his studies as zombies get closer. * For such a high risk tactic that many groups will not be able to employ, I think some explanation as to when this might be a good idea might be in order. I honestly can't think of many situations at all. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 16:24, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Primarily mentioned because it is an option, and one that while not ideal is very unlikely to be at all uncommon. When there are one or two people and an area (supermarket being a fair example actually) where there is low visibility/lots of obstacles and zombies could be waiting anywhere, this allows you to deal with them without having to go in and look. Low-population areas like a village post office, a roadside service station, or a remote 'strip mall' (I think that's what I mean, at least) would be the kind of place for this. The whole engagement should not take very long, and the following looting done swiftly. The reason for the tactic is that thse supply areas are more dangerous than trekking in the open; how many movies have we seen a Zombie grab someone from the other side of a set of shelves? Keeping an escape route would mean knowing where the exits are, not literally leaving a door open. Ladders up to roofs are good, especially if they're close enough to jump across. For 'managable numbers' read 'don't try to do this on a city high street.' As I have said, this is a small-scale tactic that only becomes viable against large zombie groups with a proper position and several survivors working as a team, and then it would only be one step in an area clearance operation. The use of melee weapons for very few zombies is a warning not a reccomendation, i.e. you really should have a ranged weapon but if none are available then don't try this unless we're talking ten or so. (Thus avoiding the all-to-common idea of "Hey guys! Katanas can cut through tanks, the internet says so, what chance do a few hundred zombies have if they're all standing in a line?") I see no problem with the name. Baiting is what is going on here and calling the horde, again, is an accurate descriptor. You are bait and this attracts zombies, and taking a stand and shouting/getting attention is pretty much calling out 'the horde' so. . . yeah. I'll rewrite to clarify, if this is enough. Is there anything else I need to add? Apologies for the issues, this is my first Wiki. - Zach :No need to apologize at all, sir. This is how progress is made on tough subjects on wikis - through open and respectful discourse. We should make our points as plainly as possible, and hope that other editors join in to give their perspectives, because just because I'm an admin doesn't mean I cannot be (or have not been) swayed before. :First off, if you feel another article, such as Room Sweeping Tactics, for example, already captures the main point of your article, then it is better to add your ideas to the existing one, than to make your own. We want content in articles to link to one another, and have a small amount of overlap. Your reply makes me think that your vision for an article is mostly captured by room sweeping tactics. :Again, I would say there is a big difference between baiting, calling a horde, and clearing a room/building. Calling a horde is a massive undertaking - in terms of both logistics and heroics. Maybe part of the problem is that we have different notions of the term "horde". I look at it this way... if a horde of zombies does not give serious problems to a small group of survivors that aren't hunkered down... then the group wasn't big enough to be called a horde. A small horde to me is at least 70 or 80. Every member in your party will likely have to reload more than once if it's a horde. Ten is not a horde, and plans to fight just ten would seem to me to be in short demand - either you're fighting a few, or you're fighting tons. :Not every instance of baiting (and I would say less than a percent of all ''"advisable" instances of baiting) call for confronting a small horde. That's not even considering what I mention about outdoor baiting - that zombie moans work like a domino effect, so even if you have a vague idea of population in a given area, it is very possible (especially in suburban clusters, or given time, even rural areas near roads), that the call-and-respond chain of zombies and moans goes for miles in multiple directions, and summons thousands. :Baiting can be used to get a small cluster away from a car, or clear an escape path for a group that is wounded or out of ammo. Baiting can be for more things than ridding an area of zombies via forcing them through a bottleneck or mobile killzone. Just as Weapons has no context other than weapons themselves, baiting should not be presented as practical only for calling a horde (Battle of Hope) or clearing a structure (room sweeping tactics). Even if we put further/stronger disclaimers, the article seems less about the general practice of baiting, and more about these specific cases (which, while worth mentioning, aren't the whole picture). :The scenario depicted in Room Sweeping Tactics (and your above examples) is medium risk, I would say. Calling a horde is always high risk, because you don't know if you'll be fighting for 20 minutes, or if there are zombies amassing hours away in all directions, cutting off your escape past your sightline. It's less about baiting animals, and more like stabbing away at an iceshelf high in the Alps. :Anyway, I feel for the second time on this issue, I have made my points clumsily, but I am very tired, not exactly lucid, and mentally drained from work, which is why I've put this response off so long. I still think baiting can be a good article. Just not this article. It should be broad, touching on many ways of doing it, but not in great detail. One thing it could include is a section paraphrasing my deduction that there is no consensus, and therefore, no universal bait they usually respond to other than locking in on a human for the kill (not dogs, not smoke detector beeping, not gunshots, and not RCs covered in hamburger patties.). Getting back to the point, it could be good, but it would still be an overhaul. :I even think, as a large scale tactic and a separate article, calling a horde for a mass extermination could also be a good article. Setting up your own Battle of Hope, and such. Anyway, I hope I don't sound like I'm closing the book on the issue. I'm still up for ideas. : — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 21:10, July 2, 2010 (UTC) Red Dead Redemption Zombies I appreciate the effort to keep zombiepedia up on the latest zombie related news. I acknowledge that we are fairly loose with what we consider notable enough to include or make an article for here. And I respect the view that says we should increase our pagecount so that zombiepedia is more notable. Still, I cannot in good conscience allow this one to stay. It is just too obscure. Maybe if the mod catches fire in the future like Nazi Zombies. But unless we have lots of people who disagree with me, I'm going to delete that article. BTW, I'm playin RDR right now. Good game. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 18:28, July 11, 2010 (UTC) I don't think this should be deleted because it is coming out on a DLC later this year, it is about zombies, and people will read about it. I understand why you think it should be now but it will probably come up again sometime in the future. Six stages of a zombie outbreak My reasons for nominating this article are that it seems to be '''original and extremely subjective content, and also that it's themes are already covered by Outbreaks. I think a similar article that focuses less on the exact numbers (from a God's eye view) of how to define these phases, and more about what to look for - what things you might notice being there to tell a small one from a large one - that might have potential. But we already have articles about this sort of thing from the outside looking in, or with hindsight. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 20:52, July 14, 2010 (UTC) Pain Train Plan There are many reasons why this article does not meet Zombiepedia standards. - No referring to yourself on a wiki article. Maybe a Userplan, but still, it is awkward and doesn't add anything unless you have some sort of real life credentials, and the reader (for some reason) already knows this. - Around a circular? Like, one of these? (Ok, that was a cheap shot, I apologize). Seriously though, if you mean a circular track... there probably aren't alot of those. Remember, rail systems are very expensive, so pretty much all of them form major travel routes for public transit or freight. Not circles. - The wiki should not have under construction pages. No page is ever truly done, as there is always room for improvement, but unless there is reason to think the page will have all intended sections in a day or two, you should not start an article. You can use the sandbox (search for sandbox on the left side) or - And lastly, the entire concept is not feasible. There will almost certainly not be enough power. If it runs on electric rails, the people who maintain the railroad, and the powerplants will either be dead, undead, or barricaded. Even if the military has some parts cleared up, they have nothing to gain by keeping the rails working. If it is diesel powered, there are likely to be complications abound learning how to fuel a train unless you have an expert. I believe trains usually refuel after one round trip on their line, and the fueling stations depend on a steady supply of fuel from overseas, through domestic traffic, and other freight lines. Lastly, the train does not steer itself. Conducters at stations switch the routes as needed. And no one will be clearing large obsticles that may derail the train (such as cars) from the rails. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 00:23, August 21, 2010 (UTC) Flesheater While Zombiepedia would be incomplete without articles on pivotal works of zombie fiction, such as 28 Days Later, Night of the Living Dead, and The Walking Dead, it clealy states on the list (or maybe category) page for films that Zombiepedia is not a zombie film resource. I nominated Flesheater for deletion because I don't feel it is a notable enough film. REC is about as obscure as I feel we need, and even that is generous. It's important to keep the focus on (A) aspects originating from Max Brooks and (B) survival. If I am in error about the notability of Flesheater, please provide cited sources that demonstrate its influence in terms of cast (the part about the cemetary zombie from NOTLD ''does add a bit of notability, IMHO), reception, sales, etc. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 21:16, December 28, 2010 (UTC) Maggots I nominated this article for deletion because the core premise is very impractical. While there is some use for maggots as a zombie killer in some situations... (1)... Zombiepedia focuses on the works of Max Brooks, and in his writing, he makes it very clear that the virus that is responsible for the zombie transformation is also highly toxic to all living things, so much so that they do not actually decompose (adding to their "natural" lifespan). So it doesn't work against Solanum. While that could technically be added as a footnote.. (2) Maggots will not naturally attach if they are thrown towards a cadaver. They are buried by flies as eggs. True, maggots will rapidly chew up a cadaver if one is dropped into a maggot bed, but clearly, this is not an everyday option. Even so, I'm sure before they render the zombie immoble, it would take days of eating. In my view, they simply cannot be used as a weapon in a combat situation. Perhaps areas that are made to be very rich in fly colonies might, but even that is a stretch. (3), The article lacks info on how to procure maggots. Even if maggots were a vital tool, they are not widely available in a form obvious to the layperson, so this is vital info. Even so, I'm sure there are very few viable plans for starting a maggot farm in the face of a zombie apocalypse (with no conventional/industrially produced supplies). Having said that, I might reconsider if more was added about how to grow and harvest them (please no pictures). I am open to discussion on all matters listed here. And on a personal note, I hate to add this deletion nomination, because I thought the overall idea is very clever, and the article is well written. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 01:12, January 3, 2011 (UTC) Hey. I created the page. I did not mean any harm, but in my mind, maggots, in large numbers, can take out a lot of zombies, fast or slow. With the amount of dead bodies around if there ever were a zombie infestation, maggots would be easily obtainable. They are a weapon against zombies, so I thought I should add it. But I also think we should get more info on how to grow a maggot farm. --BobNewbie talk • blog 08:50, January 3, 2011 (UTC) True, but if not one else has pointed out, all animals, big or tiny like a maggot, have a sixth sense to stay AWAY from the undead, let alone not eat them. now im not saying it wouldn't of been a great idea, im just saying that the maggots wouldn't eat tthem. ''A zombie hunter I also belive the artical should stay as it provides a fresh perspective on zombie warfare, and with only minor adaptation could give alot of people good idea and provide more uses for maggots, such as moats. :A moat of maggots not only requires an immense amount of manpower and food (meaning a fully renewable infrastructure of meat to support the maggots, some sort of food to support the maggot's meat, a water source... all of which within the moat), but you have to remember... maggots are baby flies. The area would be constantly swarming with flies, which would pose a health risk. :Also, maggots would most likely take weeks to eat enough of a zombie to incapacitate them. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 23:03, June 25, 2011 (UTC) Maggots 2 '''Maggots' are a useful, but underrated way of defending yourself and/or eliminating a Zombie threat. Maggots are fly larvae. They are soft white worms with a lifespan of roughly a day. After the larval stage is complete, they become one of a variety fly species. Description Maggots are small insect creatures which feed on rotting flesh. Generally, human and animal flesh, no matter if the human is dead or alive. This makes them a large threat against Zombies, as a single maggot can eat a large part of a zombie and breed more. Thus, the zombie can be made completely immobile in less then a single day, and if a large amount of maggots are applied, less then that. Maggots only consume dead or necrotic flesh, which is why some hospitals and healing centers keep small caches of frozen maggots in stock. They, like all lifeforms, are intolerant of the secretions of the Solanum virus, and sensing this, do not attempt to devour Solanum infected flesh. ::: Where the heck did anyone get the idea they can devour a person's worth of dead flesh in a day? A problem with maggots are the fact that they will also spoil any food or supplies that they find. Take caution. Using maggots in traps, such as moats around a base, simple tripwires, pitfalls or even locked in a single room or holding cell. ... See above. Techniques *Ranged: Using something that can fling or throw maggots from a distance. *Legs: Throwing zombies with maggots at the feet, legs or kneecaps, thus potentially slowing them down. Maggots have no limbs or appendages of anykind. They consume the flesh that they have been inserted into slowly (I couldn't any reference of teeth, I assume they use their weak digestive juices like many insects). If you were to throw a handful at an actual corpse, they would all bounce off. In medical applications, they are bound or wrapped to whatever wound they are meant to aid. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 23:03, June 25, 2011 (UTC) Black Zones I am certain this is not in any of Max Brooks' works. If it is in any prominent and known zombie works, please someone cite the source. If this is original content, it does not belong in an article. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 03:05, June 6, 2011 (UTC) :More of a original fan fiction type of article then content as far as I can see. Unless a source is provided, which I lack to know of, it should be deleted. --[[User:BobNewbie |'Zombie''' ]]talk • blog 10:56, June 6, 2011 (UTC) : :I think perhaps there should be a page for theories and fan fiction so that we may voice our own opinions and show our theories and original content, this page shoul however npt be deleted due to the fact that it isnt "true" or "real" in your eyes. I believe that these theories are plausible and can happen so this article does seem valid, does it not? 15:21, June 6, 2011 (UTC)Zeddy ::As is the case with most wiki's, article pages must meet an acceptible, and standardized level of quality and accuracy. Most visitors expect information when they search Zombiepedia, not fiction. How can Zombiepedia presume to be an authority on anything if conjecture is the norm? For those that insist on using this site as a form of self expression, we do allow User Plans and FanFiction pages, provided that they are consistent with the prevailing naming convention. Please search for either of those two, and see if you would like to move the content into a page like those. The Perch page sounds very much like a User Plan page would be more appropriate. However, Article (general) pages must cover either actual survival techniques or cited notable zombie works. :: — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>']] talk 18:30, June 6, 2011 (UTC) "Perch" Quotation marks are unacceptable for a article name. Also, the term is too vague. The principles of "piling" as well as being trapped in a base without supplies are great ideas for articles, provided they are well written, and have an effective and to-the-point title. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 16:49, June 17, 2011 (UTC) Standard loadout While I'm sure this is a broadly accepted term in military shooter video games, I am reluctant to believe it is a well known term in law enforcement or military circles. I also found little online about this, outside of video game websites. Assigning added value or recognition to phrases where it doesn't exist is not grounds for a new article. Please provide official sources where the term is defined as you have it. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 00:00, July 12, 2011 (UTC) Home Depot I nominated this for deletion for two reasons. The first is that it uses a brand name in a way that forms a terrible precedent. In other words, if we allow a home depot page, people might start adding a page for every McDonalds, Ace Hardware, In n Out Burger, Shop-Rite, etc, etc. Home Depot is a Big-box store. Perhaps a page for that might be in order, and mention Home Depot and Lowes in the same breath with Walmart and Target. That would be a viable article. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 19:28, August 30, 2011 (UTC) Zombies and Oceans While the original editor makes some good points, it is clear that he has not read World War Z. Please see our Solanum article for more information. The major issue, however, is if the relationship between Zombies and travelling the ocean is significant enough to warrant its own article. It's a close call, but I vote that it isn't - it is adequetely covered by several other articles on this wiki. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 18:27, September 3, 2011 (UTC) Zombie Killing I did not nominate the page, but I do agree with its nomination. Anyone defending it? I'll let it stand a week in case someone can provide a feasible reason to keep it. — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>']] talk 21:10, September 13, 2011 (UTC) :Also agreeing with the nomination (on the article's talk page) is User:Teokaijie. : — [[User:Philodox|'<<— Philodox —>>''']] talk 21:15, September 13, 2011 (UTC)